having "mapped the human genome" is actually misleading. There are still so many segments in a human genome which are still not understood by biologists today. Based on mtDNA evidence (Krings et al) humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. There is no mtDNA extracted from an ape like common ancestor. An ape like common ancestor is just a speculation based on rate of mtDNA mutations which is not fully understood yet.
@daogdaog oh my god .... do you even understand evolution ? it does not claim that we came from apes .. we where once apelike ... and that common ancestor branched into different species and one branch became the humans!!!
@IvanderHaisley show me a solid mtDNA evidence extracted from an apelike common ancestor. Which one is the common ancestor of chimps and humans? Why do biologists have so many branch off dates for chimp-human common ancerstor? They kept on pushing back divergence dates. An ape like common ancestor is just a speculation based on rate of mtDNA mutations which is not fully understood yet.
@daogdaog; 98.7%. Chimps are 98.7% identical to us. The largest genetic margin between two humans is 99.7% (I know the 7 is ironic). 1%. A 1% difference from chimpanzees. Neuro typicals can read the emotions of chimps. You can tell when a chimp is sad, or happy, or content, etc. (I can't I have asperger syndrome). You're ability to remain willfully ignorant is amazing to me, and terrible. It horrifies me how you would willing believe such ignorant bullshit. Imagine. Why can't you just imagine?
@rampaginwalrus New studies stated that it is around 96 percent difference, not 98.7%. Percentage difference in a selective biased comparison, does not mean much in genetics that deal with billions of base pairs. The difference is actually around 150 million base pairs. A type of worm has a DNA which is around 75% identical to human DNA. Can you say that a worm is just a small portion into becoming a human? Would that horrify you?
@daogdaog; Can I get a link to a study done on it? It doesn't matter what would horrify me. Bananas are 50% identical to us, and amebas are more complex, by far. I'm going to construct a straw man, as you didn't leave me with much to argue until I get a link. It is my understanding that you don't think evolution is true, is this correct? If so, explain your reasoning, and provide evidence for all claims. I will show you there is no sufficient alternative. Prove me wrong.
@rampaginwalrus Try to search "chimp 96 percent identical dna". Even then it is still a biased comparison because biologists selected only a portion of DNA for comparision. In genetics, a small percentage difference means a lot. Just a change of 3 base pairs is fatal to genes. If evolution is indeed small changes to over a long period of time, show me an animal, in which human evolved from, that has a foot resembling almost a human foot. Show an mtDNA extracted from a human-chimp common ancestor
@daogdaog; found it, thanks. The article never says the study was done using only parts of the chimp genome. You want me to show you a hominid with our feet? Lucy. Probably the best example. The closest thing we have to full skeleton of one of our earliest ancestors, at least that resemble us. She is an Australopithecus. Wiki should have a picture of her. In her we are not looking at the feet, but the hips. She is a bi-pedal primate. And DNA only lasts a couple 100 years after decomposition.
@rampaginwalrus Try to look closely at Lucy's bones. Does she have bones on her feet? How would you know exactly that Lucy's feet resemble that of a human feet? What is percentage of chimp protein considered identical to human protein? Around 29%?
@daogdaog; I just said look at her hips. They are bi-pedal hips. A more important structure for movement than the feet in this scenario. Compare our hips to that of a chimps, and their use in both animals. Our proteins are 80% similar to that of chimpanzees.
Google: Chimp/Human Proteins - evidence for the evolutionary model
Click the first one, and please continue reading through it all. Thank you.
@rampaginwalrus We were discussing feet, you are trying show me a chimp hips. Do you have bones of Lucy's feet? If no then you are just speculating. Show me a solid evidence of a feet. Are you sure you understood what you were reading? 80% identical protein sequence or 80% different? Try to search "human chimp 30 percent protein "
@daogdaog; what you want to find out is if there is a "transitional species" between a mostly tree dwelling animal, to a bi-pedal, running animal. Lucy is that "transitional species."
Are you sure you read the whole thing? The document said 80% amino acid sequences are not the exact same. Very, very similar though. Did you read the article I presented? Or should I provide more evidence for you? And to shut you up about feet.
Google: The Foot and Ankle of Australopithecus sediba
@rampaginwalrus I have asked you to show me Lucy's feet bones, then you tried to show me a Lucy's chimp pelvic bone without a foot. How can you compare a human foot and a chimp pelvic bone? I am not interested if Lucy is bi-pedal or not, just show me Lucy's feet bones for comparison.
@rampaginwalrus You mentioned Lucy as your best example. So show me Lucy's foot and I we will make a human foot comparison. You may have seen wax foot of Lucy from the museum. It was just an artist fabrication.
@daogdaog... Lucy's foot wasn't preserved. I thought you caught on. Lucy is an Australopithecus, and the fossil talked about in the article, is an Australopithecus... It isn't that complicated. They are the same animal. You asking me for just lucy's foot is like asking me showing you a picture of a banana, you saying you want a banana, me giving you one, then you asking for the exact banana in the picture. They are both bananas. They are the same thing.
@rampaginwalrus So you dont have Lucy's foot and you assumed that it resembles a human foot. What if Lucy's foot turned out to resemble a human hand? Lucy has no facial bones and no hands. Some bones of Lucy were not even dug on the same location. And you made it as your best example for comparision. Why dont you dig Lucy's foot and come back for comparison?
@daogdaog; why can't you stop cherry picking? Is my foot the same as yours? No? Is it so similar that it doesn't matter on a larger scale? Yes. An Australopithecus foot is an Australopithecus foot. Your inability to admit you were wrong is extremely depressing, and pathetic. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. It is simply the opportunity learn. Ignorance is no excuse, it is the real thing.
@rampaginwalrus Show me Lucy's foot for human foot comparison so that we will know who is wrong. Dont rely too much on Lucy's reconstruction as your best example.
@daogdaog; Lucy's foot wasn't preserved. Get it through your thick skull. The reason we know evolution happened is because we have so many different sources. If we relied only on the first fossil we found, we would have almost no historical evidence. We have hundreds of thousands of fossils, maybe even millions. The foot and ankle talked about in the article you didn't read are from the same fucking animal as Lucy. Why must you insist on being so willfully fucking ignorant? Why can't you learn?
@rampaginwalrus Why would I need another example when you put forward your best example for human foot comparison which unfortunately has no foot at all? You are a shame to all evolutionist out there. You relied on wax reconstruction of Lucy from museums. How would I expect you to show me other compelling evidence when you dont even know that Lucy's feet bones were missing in the first place?
"Lucy. Probably the best example. The closest thing we have to full skeleton of one of our earliest ancestors"
she is the closest thing to a full skeleton. So she is our best example. She is not full.
By me bringing in evidence from another source, I am strengthening my claim. Not at all weakening it. You asked for lucy's feet. I showed you what her feet would have looked like. What more do you want? Are you just trying to avoid looking stupid?
@daogdaog; lucy's bones are right there. They are not reconstruction. They were reconstructed, and filled in where it is needed. But a large portion of the structure is complete. Enough for scientists to be able to fully reconstruct a bi-pedal ape. Our ancestor. Take your fucking god glasses off, and you will be able to see the evidence piled in the library's, and the universities, and on the internet even.
@rampaginwalrus Are you trying to convince me that the reconstructed artist’s impression wax feet of Lucy have bones in them? Lucy has no facial bones , no hands, and no feet. Some bones of Lucy were not even dug on the same location. Some bones were found 3 kilometers away.How can you be sure that those bones belonged to Lucy?
@daogdaog; The same way forensic experts can put a 5 year old body together even after it has been cut apart, burned, and spread out. And then they can find out who it is. And once again, there are other Australopithecus feet to model off of! It isn;t a blind shot in the dark, scientists aren't allowed to do that without saying they are. Unlike some groups of people I could name. WHY WON'T YOU JUST READ THE ARTICLE?
@rampaginwalrus You mentioned that your best example for human foot comparison is Lucy's. I can't imagine a sane person provide me a chimp hip for human foot comparison by having me fill in the blanks. Some bones assumed belonging to Lucy were found 3 kilometers away. Is that what you call forensic evidence?
@daogdaog; I never said lucy was the best example for human foot comparison. I said she was the best preserved and most full skeleton. Google; Lucy the hominid, and click the first one. Scroll down to discovery, and read it. If you choose not to, then I'm simply going to stop talking to you; because you don't want to find the truth, you want to be right. There is a very big difference.
@rampaginwalrus Never said what? Here is what you wrote "You want me to show you a hominid with our feet? Lucy. Probably the best example". Come on. How could you possibly deny that? Clearly you had no idea that Lucy did not have feet bones. You thought those wax exhibits in museums were real. You can't bluff me. I am not one your fellow evolutionists who inherited vestigial brains from your apelike ancestor.
@daogdaog; Do you look like your parents? Yes. And do they look like their parents? Yes. And do you all look similar, but distinctly different? Yes. This is evolution. Evolution is simply the change of anything over time, esp. in biological life. It is a fact. Evolution by natural selection, is a theory, with so much evidence backing it up, the only way to be able to deny it is with extreme bias. And macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution. So none of that.
@daogdaog; I actually feel stupid that I didn't notice I said that, actually am sorry about that. Explains a lot for where you're arguments are coming from.
@warnut8 Your statement should read, "I am not related to vegetables. I am not related to monkeys," I assume that religion has not taught you proper grammar of the English language.
Hence in terms of survival of the fittest the first members of the species were the fittest members of the legacy, since, if they had not survived, no one would exist today. Hence, all killing and murder is the guided selections in the present derived from the unnatural selections of the past
Self preservation and the elimination of competition to sustain the idealised notions of rightousness that diminsh the common quality of awareness to the meaning of order in life. Copyright peadophiles
@JesusRealTV emotions are simply another trait that resulted from evolution. It's a survival mechanism that increases our awareness of surroundings. When early humans began to live in groups, it probably became difficult to communicate so the first step to improve communication is to express feeling....Oh wait, or is it because of god?
@5551810 what? I was giving an Atheist's perspective on emotions, I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to make. We all love to express our intelligence, but come on, this is youtube. I give you a C for communication skills.
In order to believe that we are coming to an end of "natural selection" and entering a period of "guided" selection, you have to believe that people will stop fucking and or use birth control each and every time they fuck. Good fucking luck with that!
have scientists every found anything "alive" on Earth which does not appear to be from our "tree of life"? what I mean is... .it's conceivable that life could have sparked and started more than once here on earth, so I'm wondering if there's any support for that or not?
@planetdarwin certainly that's a possibility.. but there is a more viable possibility that life on earth was concieved by life on other planets... particularly Mars. a hypothesis known as panspermia.
that said... and like you mentioned, all known life on earth share genetic information, supporting commen descent from one single source.
until we find life that does not have any related genetic information, or life that exists without DNA, your hypothesis remains as such.
No, we haven't seen any evidence of multiple starts of life. It migt be because the first sucessful life had a headstart and were ablie to outcompete new crude beginnings of genetic replication - no other genetic systems had a chance to develop.
A good amount of Christians have never even read the Bible they hold so high. It's more an organization than an explanation these days, an any discrepancies within the indoctrinations of the belief system are patched with "God works in mysterious ways" and "He's testing our faith."
Sorry for the deleted posts; YouTube was messing up for me.
If evolution (science) is a religion, then Christianity is a cult. The word 'religion' can effectively be used to refer to a specific set of beliefs as to how our universe, or the life within, came about. Christianity these days is more so a society than a belief. Most people who turn to Christianity do so at the guidance of their friends or family, most often when they're very young and incapable of thinking very much for themselves.
I do not disagree that infinity can very well be real - and I also agree that if the big bang theory is true, there could very well be a precursor to such an event. Yet why would one just assume that such a precursor is a sentient-all powerful entity who guided and created, as opposed to just a natural force?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Locutusofborg789 Take that creationism<<
1That does bring up the problems of human social behavior. Should social behaviors interact according to moral or according to superior human attributes, or both?
2 Can the truth about evolution include the unexplainable awareness of a causation beyond all powers that exists even before the universe itself?
3 Is there a reason why human consciousness decision making has evolved in human minds from hundreds of thousands of years to unravel infinity?
1) I do not understand your question. What are 'superior human attributes'?
2) What is the 'truth' about evolution? The theory of evolution covers many things, but it does not cover the origin of the universe. It is about the origin of life, not about powers beyond the universe.
3) Yes, evolution is an on going process and it is never complete. We still have an appendix which is useless to us, but we will evolve to be without them in time. Same with false beliefs.
"superior traits" are what a brain thinks of itself in relation to others; actions guided by feelings of intelligence soley; &/or guided by morals; or both?
Evolution is now beyond theory. It is also about origin of "everything", not only life!
The power that started evolution can also stop it. As for appendix it's been found that it does have some type of immuno therapeutic value that is still being researched. Apx. may evolve in either direction, just like anything else
I must add yet another comment. It seems to me you are confused. That many of us have unexplainable beliefs about/awareness of a superior being is yet another evolutionary product, our mind is shaped by evolution like our genes. We have ALL kinds of awareness and beliefs, some true, some false. Evolution can explain those awarenesses - we make up beliefs to keep us feeling secured. It is an evolutionary trait of humans to be capable of coming up with beliefs to shield us from the unknown.
Evo then can follow the same laws of physics that the universes teaches. Therefore energy such to emitt the big bang must have a precursor, and along these lines infinity becomes reality.
Just an error I would like to share. Red blood cells do not contain any genetic material, they contain no nuclei, or any other organelle, and do not sythesize protien. So not "every" cell contains your specific blueprint, but red blood cells and gametes are an exception.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i stopped watching at 2:58 when he started with the evolution bullshit . and people dare to complain about religion ? LOL ! evolution *IS* a religion STUPID !!!
i sure hope so . id hate to see a mind go to waste . i mean we are pretty much headed back into the dark ages where mysticism rules and fact is a figment of imagination . when i was researching evolution, my cognitive dissonance really switched into gear !
we have undereducated people reverting to broze age knowledge and becoming so stubborn they wont even accept anything thats not written in whatever book they represent. heads buried in the sand and quite content to wallow in their ignorance.
not even making an attempt to try and look into what humanity has already discovered about the universe.
but quite happy to take advantage of it should they require the technology to better their lives.
@Zovex11 even science does not explain everything, and in turn new questions come from it. I have found that balance is the best equation in life in general
Fantastic content but the pronunciation of genome and to a lesser degree cauliflower in this video is like driving a spike into the speech center of my brain.
Don't forget all the bacteria and such that are more plentiful in your body than your own human cells.
You'd think god would have mentioned all those guys inside you! "And on the sixth day god said let there be bacteria, and let them inhabit your bodies blahb blah blah blah etc"
Brilliant vid. How the hell can anyone still flog the dead dog of creatiionism? Oh wait, i forgot, inconvenient science is all part of the conspiracy..
As soon as a atheist turn up and openly critique church/religion/dogma it falls under "persecution".
Whenever creationists turn up and critique science it's called "caring for the worlds souls / wellbeing".
In the words of Scott D. Weitzenhoffer:
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
I hate to say it , but when they say they can trace us back 150k years ago to a common mother , creationist probably get a hard on. You see i am not a biologist but i thought that evolution work on groups and not individuals so how do we trace it back to an individual and not a specific group of hominids? 4:42
creationist probably say a common mother is proof of Eve then two minutes later will say the earth can't be older than 6000 years old and any science that says its at least 150k years is a lie from Satan.
evolution is a change that happens over generations. however those generations are comprised of individuals who may or may not have traits that get passed to the next generation.
remember that in a small group there is a constant exchange of genetic information. so the genes of that common mother could have spread through out a group over the course of some generations especially if those genetics were an advantage to her descendants. hard to explain in 500 words or less.
I'm not quite sure what claim he's making about us having a common "mother". I wish he'd gone into it in more detail. It might be he's referring to the common ancestor we must all share (though that probably wasn't even a homo sapien), or making a reference to mitochondrial dna or something... I really wish he'd gone further in depth.
we inherit mtDNA from our mother only without it recombining with the the mtDNA from our father. mutations occur at statistically predictable intervals without affecting the functions of the mitochondria or the cell as a whole. we can use the the modified part as an indicator of genetic distance between people. there are some companies who can use a sample from you to tell you where your ancestors are from and at point in history those people are related to you. but you may already know that.
@purplejugnut: Think this way. You and your sister obviously have a common mother, one generation back, right? You and your first cousin also have a common mother through female lines, only this one is two gens back. All your blood relations all have a common mother through female only lines, and may be many gens back depending on how closely related you all are. Saying that all mankind is related means that we all have a common mother through female-only lines, a bunch of gens back. ...
... Same analysis applies for father and male-only lines, exactly. Males invest a lot less in children than females do, so the latest common male ancestor (Y-chromosomal Adam) may have only been 50,000 years back, while the latest common mother (Mitochondrial Eve) was 120,000 years back. They are certainly not the only common ancestors we all have, nor the latest, but they are unique in that we could potentially, but not practically, identify them.
There is a single individual that we all have decended from. It is merely thought to be our most recent common ancestor
It makes sense mathematically. We have a common male ancestor, a common homo erectus ancestor, a common ampibian ancestor, and so on. It's simply more interesting to speak about our most recent.
It is the gene that we share. We are the expression of the genes. And so that does not mean that all the thousands of other genes that we are the expression of had to be present in one and the same individual, in this case a so called "Eve".
They are also addressing the RNA; it is inherited differently than every other piece of code, the DNA.
Thought I'd take the opportunity to nerd out a bit... You use the term "cell wall" when discussing a human cell. Isn't it true that cell walls are restricted to plants and that animal cells have only a cell membrane?
having "mapped the human genome" is actually misleading. There are still so many segments in a human genome which are still not understood by biologists today. Based on mtDNA evidence (Krings et al) humans did not evolve from chimps, neanderthals, gorillas or orangutans. There is no mtDNA extracted from an ape like common ancestor. An ape like common ancestor is just a speculation based on rate of mtDNA mutations which is not fully understood yet.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog oh my god .... do you even understand evolution ? it does not claim that we came from apes .. we where once apelike ... and that common ancestor branched into different species and one branch became the humans!!!
IvanderHaisley 4 months ago
@IvanderHaisley show me a solid mtDNA evidence extracted from an apelike common ancestor. Which one is the common ancestor of chimps and humans? Why do biologists have so many branch off dates for chimp-human common ancerstor? They kept on pushing back divergence dates. An ape like common ancestor is just a speculation based on rate of mtDNA mutations which is not fully understood yet.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog; 98.7%. Chimps are 98.7% identical to us. The largest genetic margin between two humans is 99.7% (I know the 7 is ironic). 1%. A 1% difference from chimpanzees. Neuro typicals can read the emotions of chimps. You can tell when a chimp is sad, or happy, or content, etc. (I can't I have asperger syndrome). You're ability to remain willfully ignorant is amazing to me, and terrible. It horrifies me how you would willing believe such ignorant bullshit. Imagine. Why can't you just imagine?
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@rampaginwalrus New studies stated that it is around 96 percent difference, not 98.7%. Percentage difference in a selective biased comparison, does not mean much in genetics that deal with billions of base pairs. The difference is actually around 150 million base pairs. A type of worm has a DNA which is around 75% identical to human DNA. Can you say that a worm is just a small portion into becoming a human? Would that horrify you?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog; Can I get a link to a study done on it? It doesn't matter what would horrify me. Bananas are 50% identical to us, and amebas are more complex, by far. I'm going to construct a straw man, as you didn't leave me with much to argue until I get a link. It is my understanding that you don't think evolution is true, is this correct? If so, explain your reasoning, and provide evidence for all claims. I will show you there is no sufficient alternative. Prove me wrong.
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@rampaginwalrus Try to search "chimp 96 percent identical dna". Even then it is still a biased comparison because biologists selected only a portion of DNA for comparision. In genetics, a small percentage difference means a lot. Just a change of 3 base pairs is fatal to genes. If evolution is indeed small changes to over a long period of time, show me an animal, in which human evolved from, that has a foot resembling almost a human foot. Show an mtDNA extracted from a human-chimp common ancestor
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog; found it, thanks. The article never says the study was done using only parts of the chimp genome. You want me to show you a hominid with our feet? Lucy. Probably the best example. The closest thing we have to full skeleton of one of our earliest ancestors, at least that resemble us. She is an Australopithecus. Wiki should have a picture of her. In her we are not looking at the feet, but the hips. She is a bi-pedal primate. And DNA only lasts a couple 100 years after decomposition.
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@rampaginwalrus Try to look closely at Lucy's bones. Does she have bones on her feet? How would you know exactly that Lucy's feet resemble that of a human feet? What is percentage of chimp protein considered identical to human protein? Around 29%?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog; I just said look at her hips. They are bi-pedal hips. A more important structure for movement than the feet in this scenario. Compare our hips to that of a chimps, and their use in both animals. Our proteins are 80% similar to that of chimpanzees.
Google: Chimp/Human Proteins - evidence for the evolutionary model
Click the first one, and please continue reading through it all. Thank you.
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@rampaginwalrus We were discussing feet, you are trying show me a chimp hips. Do you have bones of Lucy's feet? If no then you are just speculating. Show me a solid evidence of a feet. Are you sure you understood what you were reading? 80% identical protein sequence or 80% different? Try to search "human chimp 30 percent protein "
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog; what you want to find out is if there is a "transitional species" between a mostly tree dwelling animal, to a bi-pedal, running animal. Lucy is that "transitional species."
Are you sure you read the whole thing? The document said 80% amino acid sequences are not the exact same. Very, very similar though. Did you read the article I presented? Or should I provide more evidence for you? And to shut you up about feet.
Google: The Foot and Ankle of Australopithecus sediba
It's short.
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@rampaginwalrus I have asked you to show me Lucy's feet bones, then you tried to show me a Lucy's chimp pelvic bone without a foot. How can you compare a human foot and a chimp pelvic bone? I am not interested if Lucy is bi-pedal or not, just show me Lucy's feet bones for comparison.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdao.... really? So you... didn't search the thing I asked you to? Because that's an Australopithecus foot and ankle find.... So... Yeah.
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@rampaginwalrus You mentioned Lucy as your best example. So show me Lucy's foot and I we will make a human foot comparison. You may have seen wax foot of Lucy from the museum. It was just an artist fabrication.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog... Lucy's foot wasn't preserved. I thought you caught on. Lucy is an Australopithecus, and the fossil talked about in the article, is an Australopithecus... It isn't that complicated. They are the same animal. You asking me for just lucy's foot is like asking me showing you a picture of a banana, you saying you want a banana, me giving you one, then you asking for the exact banana in the picture. They are both bananas. They are the same thing.
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@rampaginwalrus So you dont have Lucy's foot and you assumed that it resembles a human foot. What if Lucy's foot turned out to resemble a human hand? Lucy has no facial bones and no hands. Some bones of Lucy were not even dug on the same location. And you made it as your best example for comparision. Why dont you dig Lucy's foot and come back for comparison?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog; why can't you stop cherry picking? Is my foot the same as yours? No? Is it so similar that it doesn't matter on a larger scale? Yes. An Australopithecus foot is an Australopithecus foot. Your inability to admit you were wrong is extremely depressing, and pathetic. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. It is simply the opportunity learn. Ignorance is no excuse, it is the real thing.
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@rampaginwalrus Show me Lucy's foot for human foot comparison so that we will know who is wrong. Dont rely too much on Lucy's reconstruction as your best example.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog; Lucy's foot wasn't preserved. Get it through your thick skull. The reason we know evolution happened is because we have so many different sources. If we relied only on the first fossil we found, we would have almost no historical evidence. We have hundreds of thousands of fossils, maybe even millions. The foot and ankle talked about in the article you didn't read are from the same fucking animal as Lucy. Why must you insist on being so willfully fucking ignorant? Why can't you learn?
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@rampaginwalrus Why would I need another example when you put forward your best example for human foot comparison which unfortunately has no foot at all? You are a shame to all evolutionist out there. You relied on wax reconstruction of Lucy from museums. How would I expect you to show me other compelling evidence when you dont even know that Lucy's feet bones were missing in the first place?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog; I did know that. I said;
"Lucy. Probably the best example. The closest thing we have to full skeleton of one of our earliest ancestors"
she is the closest thing to a full skeleton. So she is our best example. She is not full.
By me bringing in evidence from another source, I am strengthening my claim. Not at all weakening it. You asked for lucy's feet. I showed you what her feet would have looked like. What more do you want? Are you just trying to avoid looking stupid?
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@daogdaog; lucy's bones are right there. They are not reconstruction. They were reconstructed, and filled in where it is needed. But a large portion of the structure is complete. Enough for scientists to be able to fully reconstruct a bi-pedal ape. Our ancestor. Take your fucking god glasses off, and you will be able to see the evidence piled in the library's, and the universities, and on the internet even.
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
Comment removed
daogdaog 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rampaginwalrus Are you trying to convince me that the reconstructed artist’s impression wax feet of Lucy have bones in them? Lucy has no facial bones , no hands, and no feet. Some bones of Lucy were not even dug on the same location. Some bones were found 3 kilometers away.How can you be sure that those bones belonged to Lucy?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog; The same way forensic experts can put a 5 year old body together even after it has been cut apart, burned, and spread out. And then they can find out who it is. And once again, there are other Australopithecus feet to model off of! It isn;t a blind shot in the dark, scientists aren't allowed to do that without saying they are. Unlike some groups of people I could name. WHY WON'T YOU JUST READ THE ARTICLE?
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@rampaginwalrus You mentioned that your best example for human foot comparison is Lucy's. I can't imagine a sane person provide me a chimp hip for human foot comparison by having me fill in the blanks. Some bones assumed belonging to Lucy were found 3 kilometers away. Is that what you call forensic evidence?
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog; I never said lucy was the best example for human foot comparison. I said she was the best preserved and most full skeleton. Google; Lucy the hominid, and click the first one. Scroll down to discovery, and read it. If you choose not to, then I'm simply going to stop talking to you; because you don't want to find the truth, you want to be right. There is a very big difference.
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@rampaginwalrus Never said what? Here is what you wrote "You want me to show you a hominid with our feet? Lucy. Probably the best example". Come on. How could you possibly deny that? Clearly you had no idea that Lucy did not have feet bones. You thought those wax exhibits in museums were real. You can't bluff me. I am not one your fellow evolutionists who inherited vestigial brains from your apelike ancestor.
daogdaog 3 months ago
@daogdaog; oh, it appears I did make a mistake. Oh well. I meant differently, that's all I can say to that. Allow me to PROVE evolution to you:
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@daogdaog; Do you look like your parents? Yes. And do they look like their parents? Yes. And do you all look similar, but distinctly different? Yes. This is evolution. Evolution is simply the change of anything over time, esp. in biological life. It is a fact. Evolution by natural selection, is a theory, with so much evidence backing it up, the only way to be able to deny it is with extreme bias. And macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution. So none of that.
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
@daogdaog; I actually feel stupid that I didn't notice I said that, actually am sorry about that. Explains a lot for where you're arguments are coming from.
rampaginwalrus 3 months ago
140 creatards are frightened by this video.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
50% veggie. that certainly explains how people are stupid enough enough to believe in god.
torrid426 5 months ago
rubish i tell you rubish.
sonygjh 5 months ago
Religious nut jobs troll these videos because they disable the comments on all of their own videos.
pimpymcdougall 8 months ago 4
evolution is fake! i aint related to no vegtabl i aint related to no monky ither all you evolution belivers are going to hell!
warnut8 9 months ago
@warnut8 La evolución si ocurrió.
molib2000 8 months ago
@warnut8 Die already, please. We don't need people like you.
4FunPlayin 8 months ago
@4FunPlayin ill go to hevan when i die and you won't.
warnut8 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warnut8 Have fun licking your genocide lover god.
4FunPlayin 8 months ago
@warnut8 Your statement should read, "I am not related to vegetables. I am not related to monkeys," I assume that religion has not taught you proper grammar of the English language.
IDV82atl 7 months ago
Comment removed
5551810 9 months ago
Hence in terms of survival of the fittest the first members of the species were the fittest members of the legacy, since, if they had not survived, no one would exist today. Hence, all killing and murder is the guided selections in the present derived from the unnatural selections of the past
Self preservation and the elimination of competition to sustain the idealised notions of rightousness that diminsh the common quality of awareness to the meaning of order in life. Copyright peadophiles
5551810 10 months ago
ATHEISTS CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY WE HAVE FEELINGS CHECK THIS VIDEO
watch?v=EbTdClePK94
JesusRealTV 11 months ago
@JesusRealTV emotions are simply another trait that resulted from evolution. It's a survival mechanism that increases our awareness of surroundings. When early humans began to live in groups, it probably became difficult to communicate so the first step to improve communication is to express feeling....Oh wait, or is it because of god?
ericalto 10 months ago
Comment removed
5551810 9 months ago
Comment removed
5551810 9 months ago
@5551810 what? I was giving an Atheist's perspective on emotions, I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to make. We all love to express our intelligence, but come on, this is youtube. I give you a C for communication skills.
ericalto 9 months ago
All of this has been proven. I'm sorry you religious people were born and indoctrinated into a religion of your parents :/
infinityms 11 months ago
In order to believe that we are coming to an end of "natural selection" and entering a period of "guided" selection, you have to believe that people will stop fucking and or use birth control each and every time they fuck. Good fucking luck with that!
christo930 1 year ago
Wow! An ant has only two chromosomes. I've worked with a lot of people that are in desperate need of these two chromosomes.
rocketpropulsion 1 year ago
a mouse and an infant with a similar white patch on their forehead???i love that!!
08arijit 1 year ago
this is why my kid will be an all arian super child
FaShoFaSho2102 1 year ago
Wanna worship something? Try Science and Scientists.
Grey13Human 1 year ago 10
I think there needs to be guided selection to assuage our dumbing down rate and to vastly slow down racial genocide for groups with low birth rates.
jaymthegenius 1 year ago
They troll these to try to get people from believing in science and to the creation stories of their religion.
chevroletgt 1 year ago
4 letters:
cytosine
guanine
thymine
adenine
This is amazing!
themooddisorders 1 year ago
have scientists every found anything "alive" on Earth which does not appear to be from our "tree of life"? what I mean is... .it's conceivable that life could have sparked and started more than once here on earth, so I'm wondering if there's any support for that or not?
planetdarwin 2 years ago
@planetdarwin certainly that's a possibility.. but there is a more viable possibility that life on earth was concieved by life on other planets... particularly Mars. a hypothesis known as panspermia.
that said... and like you mentioned, all known life on earth share genetic information, supporting commen descent from one single source.
until we find life that does not have any related genetic information, or life that exists without DNA, your hypothesis remains as such.
axemurderer27 2 years ago
@ planetdarwin
No, we haven't seen any evidence of multiple starts of life. It migt be because the first sucessful life had a headstart and were ablie to outcompete new crude beginnings of genetic replication - no other genetic systems had a chance to develop.
ortoceratite 1 year ago
i like the jugs bouncing at the beginning. the big dude on HGH as an example of the human machine..... no fair!!!!
planetdarwin 2 years ago
I LOVE THE Cassiopeia Project!
knowinginfinity 2 years ago
It is not very hard to believe we share an ancestor with the cauliflower. One can still find a familial resemblance in many people.
Arancaytar 2 years ago 2
LOL 0:56
.. there's always an excuse to show bouncing boobs =) even in a science vid
8DX 2 years ago
any religion requires a diety - science has none!!! so science is not a religion!
CigarStudLasVegas 2 years ago 10
A good amount of Christians have never even read the Bible they hold so high. It's more an organization than an explanation these days, an any discrepancies within the indoctrinations of the belief system are patched with "God works in mysterious ways" and "He's testing our faith."
Sorry for the deleted posts; YouTube was messing up for me.
BlahKing101 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
BlahKing101 2 years ago
If evolution (science) is a religion, then Christianity is a cult. The word 'religion' can effectively be used to refer to a specific set of beliefs as to how our universe, or the life within, came about. Christianity these days is more so a society than a belief. Most people who turn to Christianity do so at the guidance of their friends or family, most often when they're very young and incapable of thinking very much for themselves.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Comment removed
BlahKing101 2 years ago
Lol, why are there so many religious nut jobs trolling these videos ?
manhunt48 2 years ago 67
cause they are scared!!!
CigarStudLasVegas 2 years ago 5
@manhunt48
rite
MegaDarkness69 1 year ago
@manhunt48 They have to make their point somewhere, so lets let the do it where they fail the most xD
ninjafisk90 1 year ago
@manhunt48
Cause they're all fucked up individuals, who want to spread bullshit !!!
GILFHunter121 11 months ago
I do not disagree that infinity can very well be real - and I also agree that if the big bang theory is true, there could very well be a precursor to such an event. Yet why would one just assume that such a precursor is a sentient-all powerful entity who guided and created, as opposed to just a natural force?
Locutusofborg789 2 years ago
Thanks for this worthwhile video. Take that creationism! Don't let them teach that shit to our kids!
Locutusofborg789 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Locutusofborg789 Take that creationism<<
1That does bring up the problems of human social behavior. Should social behaviors interact according to moral or according to superior human attributes, or both?
2 Can the truth about evolution include the unexplainable awareness of a causation beyond all powers that exists even before the universe itself?
3 Is there a reason why human consciousness decision making has evolved in human minds from hundreds of thousands of years to unravel infinity?
EGMAG 2 years ago
EGMAG
1) I do not understand your question. What are 'superior human attributes'?
2) What is the 'truth' about evolution? The theory of evolution covers many things, but it does not cover the origin of the universe. It is about the origin of life, not about powers beyond the universe.
3) Yes, evolution is an on going process and it is never complete. We still have an appendix which is useless to us, but we will evolve to be without them in time. Same with false beliefs.
Locutusofborg789 2 years ago 5
Locust superior..<<
"superior traits" are what a brain thinks of itself in relation to others; actions guided by feelings of intelligence soley; &/or guided by morals; or both?
Evolution is now beyond theory. It is also about origin of "everything", not only life!
The power that started evolution can also stop it. As for appendix it's been found that it does have some type of immuno therapeutic value that is still being researched. Apx. may evolve in either direction, just like anything else
EGMAG 2 years ago
I must add yet another comment. It seems to me you are confused. That many of us have unexplainable beliefs about/awareness of a superior being is yet another evolutionary product, our mind is shaped by evolution like our genes. We have ALL kinds of awareness and beliefs, some true, some false. Evolution can explain those awarenesses - we make up beliefs to keep us feeling secured. It is an evolutionary trait of humans to be capable of coming up with beliefs to shield us from the unknown.
Locutusofborg789 2 years ago
Locus unexplainable beliefs <<
Evo then can follow the same laws of physics that the universes teaches. Therefore energy such to emitt the big bang must have a precursor, and along these lines infinity becomes reality.
EGMAG 2 years ago
my cells are Psychopathy, i'm always bad and i love it...
Copain1105 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Four letters...
YHWH
YHWH is gods name, it means "for it to be possible." YH might mean Male Humanoid, and WH Female Humanoid.
Male + Female = Babies
Baby = New Life
New Life = YHWH
Jink5 2 years ago
your god's name is reall Yahweh. people put YHWH the jewish people considered it unspeakable.
buginwater 2 years ago
Just an error I would like to share. Red blood cells do not contain any genetic material, they contain no nuclei, or any other organelle, and do not sythesize protien. So not "every" cell contains your specific blueprint, but red blood cells and gametes are an exception.
biomanwin 2 years ago 5
The genes are nothing but 4 letter coded instructions for making protein molecules.
They are by themselves quite useless, but by going together and sorrounded by the right conditions their power is released.
The power of the Phenotype, the power of Us and every other organism on this planet.
Much more breathtaking than any miracle.
qanazir 2 years ago 3
Codons are 3 base pairs, genes can be pretty much any number of codons.
Where 'd you get 4 from? :-p
thesecondlenin 2 years ago
ithink he meant the 4 nucleotides: adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine
buginwater 2 years ago
I love this channel! These videos are so great and well done! It makes me want to be a teacher and share with the world :-)
It reminds me of the "understanding festival" they used to have on the discovery channel. yay!
misslipstickvogue 2 years ago 3
My cells love beer.
shoa31 2 years ago 4
Mine too!:-)
Heroasango 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i stopped watching at 2:58 when he started with the evolution bullshit . and people dare to complain about religion ? LOL ! evolution *IS* a religion STUPID !!!
stonerj0e 2 years ago
Moron, what are you a creationist?
jorsher123 2 years ago
lmao
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
well evolution isn't science ya know ?
stonerj0e 2 years ago
bwahahahahahahahaha!
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago 5
exactly !
stonerj0e 2 years ago
I'm gonna go with the massive amount of evidence and overwhelming support by credible scientists on this one man.
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago 7
i sure hope so . id hate to see a mind go to waste . i mean we are pretty much headed back into the dark ages where mysticism rules and fact is a figment of imagination . when i was researching evolution, my cognitive dissonance really switched into gear !
stonerj0e 2 years ago
i hear that man.
we have undereducated people reverting to broze age knowledge and becoming so stubborn they wont even accept anything thats not written in whatever book they represent. heads buried in the sand and quite content to wallow in their ignorance.
not even making an attempt to try and look into what humanity has already discovered about the universe.
but quite happy to take advantage of it should they require the technology to better their lives.
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago 5
yeah right on !
stonerj0e 2 years ago
i obviously misunderstood your earlier comment. i dont know what you mean i guess when you said evolution is a religion.
peace
NATEandtheMONKEY 2 years ago 3
retard..
catmaster141 2 years ago
@catmaster141 are you gay ? i only ask because i looked at your channel and you looked like a young girl !
stonerj0e 2 years ago
Ehh no.. I am a boy and i am not gay. I just havent had a haircut in several months...
catmaster141 2 years ago
also i think you have smoked to much weed..
catmaster141 2 years ago
@catmaster141 you can never smoke too much ...
stonerj0e 2 years ago
cat...
There's absolutely no such thing as smoking "too much" weed!!!
Cootabux 2 years ago
For some strange reason I felt bad for that cauliflower...I swear I could hear it's pleas to be spared.
omegaoka 2 years ago 3
This video is quite eerie. I love it.
nightpotato 2 years ago
haha.. were a plant kids
energeneticwarrior 2 years ago
the heart beats 3mil times what per day? lifetime?
JahLoveOnline 2 years ago
The hell was up with the basketball player?
KillCount666 2 years ago
Lots of info in such a short time. Very well done.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Religion = Delusional You can't have a rational debate with a delusional person about the topic that they are deluded about.
Hipster420 2 years ago 14
Religion = fail..
Zovex11 2 years ago 79
@Zovex11 even science does not explain everything, and in turn new questions come from it. I have found that balance is the best equation in life in general
AlexanderRaccoon 9 months ago
I think human beings will likely replaced by the time population wide genetic engineering becomes feasible.
Air420 2 years ago
I want to have wings myself. I wonder if we'll have to name every tweaked being?
MeansDarling 2 years ago 2
Fantastic content but the pronunciation of genome and to a lesser degree cauliflower in this video is like driving a spike into the speech center of my brain.
Sooung 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i hate black people
Treggy84 2 years ago
Don't forget all the bacteria and such that are more plentiful in your body than your own human cells.
You'd think god would have mentioned all those guys inside you! "And on the sixth day god said let there be bacteria, and let them inhabit your bodies blahb blah blah blah etc"
Gerafix 2 years ago
Brilliant vid. How the hell can anyone still flog the dead dog of creatiionism? Oh wait, i forgot, inconvenient science is all part of the conspiracy..
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
what incredibly annoying pronunciation
it even changes during the video
Htrac 2 years ago
awesome video.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
Anyone else think our common ancestor to everything is the polyp?
JustAManInAMask 2 years ago
I think you need to rephrase that to get any sort of answer.
willowtreephoto 2 years ago
I think I noticed a grammatical error in my post earlier. -.-
Does anyone else think the polyp was the beginner of all life?
JustAManInAMask 2 years ago
Creationists do things atheists never do. They run into a gathering of non-creationists and disrupt the gathering.
How many atheists invade christian blogs? Show up in their churches and disrupt their services?
I have a feeling that the numbers, even adjusted per capita, show that one group does it far, far more than the other.
I can't wait until wolframalpha can answer this. Then I would just put the link. For now, I will leave it up to the reader to make their own guess.
kurtu5 2 years ago 4
As soon as a atheist turn up and openly critique church/religion/dogma it falls under "persecution".
Whenever creationists turn up and critique science it's called "caring for the worlds souls / wellbeing".
In the words of Scott D. Weitzenhoffer:
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
Paxmax 2 years ago 12
Wow, I fucking love that quote XD
Deioth 2 years ago 2
yeah, it's lovely!... that mental image is really popping up now and then while hearing creationist showing off their "skillz" about evolution.
Paxmax 2 years ago
I hate to say it , but when they say they can trace us back 150k years ago to a common mother , creationist probably get a hard on. You see i am not a biologist but i thought that evolution work on groups and not individuals so how do we trace it back to an individual and not a specific group of hominids? 4:42
ericpao81 2 years ago
i think they are saying the first hominids were from africa and we all descended from those hominids not all life, just us modern day humans
CooKi3isCrunk 2 years ago
I'm just saying i've heard it said this way a few times. They always point back to the original mother and it sounds counterproductive.
ericpao81 2 years ago
creationist probably say a common mother is proof of Eve then two minutes later will say the earth can't be older than 6000 years old and any science that says its at least 150k years is a lie from Satan.
evolution is a change that happens over generations. however those generations are comprised of individuals who may or may not have traits that get passed to the next generation.
purplejugnut 2 years ago
why would we all share a common "mother"?
remember that in a small group there is a constant exchange of genetic information. so the genes of that common mother could have spread through out a group over the course of some generations especially if those genetics were an advantage to her descendants. hard to explain in 500 words or less.
purplejugnut 2 years ago
I'm not quite sure what claim he's making about us having a common "mother". I wish he'd gone into it in more detail. It might be he's referring to the common ancestor we must all share (though that probably wasn't even a homo sapien), or making a reference to mitochondrial dna or something... I really wish he'd gone further in depth.
CharBroiled04 2 years ago
we inherit mtDNA from our mother only without it recombining with the the mtDNA from our father. mutations occur at statistically predictable intervals without affecting the functions of the mitochondria or the cell as a whole. we can use the the modified part as an indicator of genetic distance between people. there are some companies who can use a sample from you to tell you where your ancestors are from and at point in history those people are related to you. but you may already know that.
purplejugnut 2 years ago
a common mother means that all homo sapiens are realted to each other.
lgr1991 2 years ago
@purplejugnut: Think this way. You and your sister obviously have a common mother, one generation back, right? You and your first cousin also have a common mother through female lines, only this one is two gens back. All your blood relations all have a common mother through female only lines, and may be many gens back depending on how closely related you all are. Saying that all mankind is related means that we all have a common mother through female-only lines, a bunch of gens back. ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... Same analysis applies for father and male-only lines, exactly. Males invest a lot less in children than females do, so the latest common male ancestor (Y-chromosomal Adam) may have only been 50,000 years back, while the latest common mother (Mitochondrial Eve) was 120,000 years back. They are certainly not the only common ancestors we all have, nor the latest, but they are unique in that we could potentially, but not practically, identify them.
puncheex 1 year ago
google "mitochondrial eve" and read.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
There is a single individual that we all have decended from. It is merely thought to be our most recent common ancestor
It makes sense mathematically. We have a common male ancestor, a common homo erectus ancestor, a common ampibian ancestor, and so on. It's simply more interesting to speak about our most recent.
willowtreephoto 2 years ago
because evolution doesn't work on a groups; it works on gene selection. That's why they could go back further to simply a single gene.
capitalcontested 2 years ago
A simplification to ease understanding.
It is the gene that we share. We are the expression of the genes. And so that does not mean that all the thousands of other genes that we are the expression of had to be present in one and the same individual, in this case a so called "Eve".
They are also addressing the RNA; it is inherited differently than every other piece of code, the DNA.
And so we do not descend from just one woman.
A great video.
chiropra1 2 years ago
no wonder I get a boner every time I see a cauliflower, and all this time I thought I was the fucked up one.
iDeist 2 years ago 3
damn! why did the video have to cut off at mouse boy??
etoposide 2 years ago 3
I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of this narrator.
I dunno, maybe I'm just used to Carl Sagan :[
arbuckle1029 2 years ago
Big shoes to fill.
BarronTD 2 years ago 2
pea roast
BSEmadcow 2 years ago
Thought I'd take the opportunity to nerd out a bit... You use the term "cell wall" when discussing a human cell. Isn't it true that cell walls are restricted to plants and that animal cells have only a cell membrane?
-Modias
InModiasWeTrust 2 years ago
Yep, that's true.
RationalFuture 2 years ago
That's how I remember it, too. However, when I last took biology we were much closer to that primal mother in Africa than we are now
;-)
polemius01 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
don't believe what
digitodd 2 years ago
dunt believ this satan he is tryin to pull u away from our LORD,
the one true prophet - the elf in my pants
MistaJussu 2 years ago 8
ELVES!? That's DEMONIC EVIL!!
I shall exorcise that demoic elf by placing the blade of a dagger into hot coals and chanting three times:
"Blade of steel I conjure thee
To banish such things as named by me
As my word so mote it be."
Then stabbing the dagger into your pants.
That'll show you! bwahhaha! Counterspell!
EntinludeX 2 years ago 5
horay for boobies!
Trisnowda 2 years ago 7